Introduction:
In a significant order touching upon the delicate balance between individual liberty and the authority of law enforcement during riot situations, the Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Mohd. Alam, a youth from Sambhal, who is also an accused in a rioting case arising out of the violence that occurred in November 2024. The interim protection was granted by a Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, which also directed the State Government to file a counter-affidavit responding to the allegations raised by the applicant.
The case carries unusual complexity because while Mohd. Alam is facing prosecution under serious penal provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to rioting, attempt to murder, and assault on public servants, his father Yameen had earlier approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court at Sambhal alleging that Alam himself was a victim of unprovoked police firing. Acting on that plea, the CJM had ordered registration of an FIR against certain police officials, including senior officers of the local police station, holding that police firing on civilians could not be protected under the shield of “official duty.”
Thus, the High Court was confronted with a situation where the same individual was simultaneously being treated as an accused in a riot case and claimed to be a victim of police firing in the very same incident. Adding further institutional sensitivity to the matter was the fact that the CJM who ordered registration of FIR against police officials was transferred shortly thereafter as part of an administrative reshuffle.
Against this background, Mohd. Alam approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR registered against him under Sections 191(3) (rioting with deadly weapon), 109(1) (attempt to murder), 121 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant), and 132 (assault on public servant) of the BNS. The High Court, without entering into the merits of guilt or innocence at this stage, granted interim protection till 25 February 2026, and called upon the State to justify its position through a formal counter-affidavit.
Arguments of the Applicant:
Appearing for Mohd. Alam, Advocate Prabhav Srivastava strongly contested the narrative that portrayed Alam as an aggressor in the riot. The primary thrust of the defence was that the applicant was not a participant in violent activities but was, in fact, an innocent street vendor who became a victim of excessive police action.
It was submitted that on the morning of 24 November 2024 at around 8:45 AM, Alam was selling rusks (“pape”) and biscuits from his small cart near Jama Masjid, Mohalla Kot, Sambhal, when police personnel allegedly opened fire on the crowd. The firing, according to the applicant’s side, was sudden, indiscriminate, and without lawful justification, and Alam sustained a gunshot injury during this incident. Medical records, it was argued, explicitly recorded “gunshot wound” and noted that the injury occurred due to “police firing in riot,” thereby corroborating the version of the applicant and contradicting the police narrative.
The defence further pointed out that Alam was not named in the initial FIR, and his implication came later, raising serious doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. This, according to the applicant, suggested an attempt to convert a victim into an accused, possibly to neutralize or counter the complaint filed against police officials.
Another crucial argument advanced was that the applicant’s father had already approached the CJM Court under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking registration of an FIR against police officers for firing at civilians. The CJM, after examining medical evidence and police reports, had found the police version suspicious and inconsistent, and had ordered investigation against the officers concerned. This judicial finding, the defence argued, strengthened the credibility of the applicant’s claim that he was injured by police firing and not as a result of riot-related violence.
It was also emphasized that Mohd. Alam had no criminal antecedents, belonged to a poor background, and earned his livelihood through petty vending. The defence submitted that custodial interrogation was not necessary in the facts of the case, and that arrest would serve no purpose except to harass and intimidate the applicant.
Finally, the applicant gave an undertaking that he would fully cooperate with the investigation, would appear before the investigating agency whenever required, and would not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. On these grounds, it was contended that denial of anticipatory bail would amount to an unjustified deprivation of personal liberty, especially when serious questions had already been raised about the conduct of the police during the incident.
Arguments of the State:
Opposing the plea for anticipatory bail, Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Roopak Chaubey argued that Mohd. Alam was not a victim but an active participant in the violence that took place in Sambhal. According to the State, the allegations of unprovoked police firing were misleading and factually incorrect.
The prosecution asserted that Alam did not receive any gunshot injury caused by police weapons, and that the injuries, if any, were either self-inflicted, accidental, or caused during clashes between rioters and police forces. The State maintained that police action was taken in the course of dispersing violent mobs and maintaining public order, which is part of lawful duty under riot control protocols.
It was further argued that the offences alleged against the applicant were grave in nature, involving rioting with deadly weapons and attempt to murder, and therefore custodial interrogation could be necessary to identify other participants, recover weapons, and reconstruct the sequence of events. Granting anticipatory bail in such serious offences, according to the State, would hamper investigation and embolden wrongdoers.
The prosecution also questioned the timing and motive behind the application filed by the applicant’s father before the CJM Court, suggesting that it could be a counterblast to lawful police action. However, since the FIR against police officials had only recently been ordered and investigation was at a preliminary stage, the State sought time to file a detailed counter-affidavit addressing the allegations made by the applicant and the observations of the CJM.
Thus, while opposing bail in principle, the State mainly requested the High Court to defer any protective order until it could place its version formally on record.
Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:
After hearing both sides, the Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha adopted a cautious and balanced approach, mindful of the conflicting claims and the sensitive nature of the allegations involving police conduct.
At the outset, the Court did not make any final observations on the guilt or innocence of the applicant. However, it took note of certain important circumstances that warranted interim protection. Firstly, the Court acknowledged that the applicant’s father had already succeeded in securing a judicial order from the CJM directing registration of an FIR against police officials for alleged firing. This indicated that at least a prima facie case of excessive police action had been judicially recognized at the lower court level.
Secondly, the Court considered the submission that the applicant was not named in the initial FIR and that his involvement was disputed. In bail jurisprudence, particularly anticipatory bail, courts are often guided by whether the accusation appears motivated, doubtful, or retaliatory, and whether arrest is genuinely required for investigation.
Thirdly, the High Court noted that the State itself sought time to file a counter-affidavit, meaning that the factual controversy regarding injuries, police firing, and participation in riot was still unresolved and required formal response. In such a situation, immediate arrest of the applicant could cause irreversible harm to his liberty, especially if later found unnecessary.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Mohd. Alam till 25 February 2026, thereby protecting him from arrest during this period, subject to cooperation with investigation and compliance with legal requirements. Simultaneously, the Court directed the State to file a counter-affidavit, ensuring that the prosecution would have an opportunity to place its version before the Court for final consideration.
This approach reflects the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially at the stage where facts are disputed and investigation is ongoing. The order also reinforces the idea that anticipatory bail does not mean immunity from investigation but only protection from unnecessary custodial arrest.
The broader context of the case, including the CJM’s earlier observations, also carries significant constitutional implications. In his 11-page order, CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer had categorically stated that firing upon civilians cannot be treated as part of “official duty,” relying upon Supreme Court precedents which hold that criminal acts cannot be protected merely because they are committed by public servants. He had also rejected the police’s preliminary report, calling it suspicious and inconsistent with medical evidence that clearly recorded gunshot injury due to police firing.
The CJM had concluded that only a proper and independent investigation could uncover the truth, and therefore registration of FIR against the concerned police officers was necessary. The High Court’s interim protection to the applicant must be seen as consistent with this broader judicial concern for impartial investigation and protection of potential victims from retaliatory prosecution.
While the High Court did not comment on the administrative transfer of the CJM shortly after his order, the sequence of events has inevitably raised questions in public discourse about judicial independence and institutional pressures, though these issues remain outside the formal scope of the present bail proceedings.
Ultimately, the High Court’s order emphasizes judicial restraint, procedural fairness, and the constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty until guilt is proven in accordance with law.